Four Morgans - Which is the Fake?

I don't know Morgan dollars we well as I would like, but I'll attempt a guess.

Just because so many people chose #3, I wanted to find some reason to pick one of the others. However, my eyes keep coming back to the ear and breast on #3. I don't understand why there's so much wear to those areas when there doesn't seem to be the same corresponding level of wear elsewhere (hair and wreath)...and doesn't correspond with what looks like mint luster.

I guess #3.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Please, Please, Please!!

I want to preface any remarks with an appreciative statement for your thought evoking thread. I anticipate your answer, and your thought process/deduction to determine why/how one might determine authenticity.

I've been intimately involved as a proprietary designer of equipment/facilities comparable to those which produced the coins being evaluated. I'm intimately familiar with the ideosyncracies of start-up/operation/maintenance of facilities producing these ~century old "Gems". I've personally viewed the anomalies that occur in the antiquated production process of that era.

I'm enamored by the relatively youthful deductive thought processes applied in this evaluatory exercise.

Having been/still involved in private enterprise efforts to apply current technology to antiquated processes, I know that virtually any desired outcome can be currently achieved with proper implementation/operation.

I know that most, including myself, couldn't detect a properly technically developed counterfeit product, even by cursory physical examination.

So, I'll defer without comment, to the scrutiny/deduction of others. I just don't have a clue!! (clueless?)

Thanks again for a valued thread, but Please, Please, Please send me a PM informing me of the counterfeit. I PROMISE, I wont tell anyone. Scouts Honor!! :thumb:

 

Pants down, it's gotta be #3. It's just plain ole "off".

 

And the ANSWER is #3 as most of you deduced.

The reason the mint marks were blacked out is, as some probably guessed, is that the batch of fake coins contained mostly CC mint marks, even on dates such as the 1899 that were never actually minted.

All the coins, except those of the same date, were slightly different, suggesting real coins were used as models for the casting or dies, although reverses were less varied than obverses.

Under a loupe, the surfaces have a very grainy appearance (probably cast) with an absence of extremely fine scratches found on a real circulated coin. There are no signs of sprues or cast seams. The edges are reeded but the cuts are very triangular -- and the density of cuts varies on some coins -- close together in places and further apart in others. Further, the edges have been beveled excessively, creating an almost rounded profile when viewed on end.

Most of the coins didn't have the usual tell-tale marks of a cast fake -- rounded edges between devices and fields, flat stars, slick feel to surface, fat fonts, etc. Most features seemed perfectly consistent with a circulated model except that overall they appear a little soft.

Size of the coins, diameter and thickness, is correct and within tolerances. HOWEVER, weight was only 19.4 +/- grams instead of 26.73. And all the coins failed the magnet test.

These coins were obviously not created to deceive experienced collectors but could easily fool a novice. As we've aleady seen on recent posts on this forum, some eBay sellers are pushing these coins as authentic. It is for certain that MUCH better fakes are out there, attempting to fool even the most experienced buyers.

I hope this has possibly helped a few unsuspecting buyers from making a mistake.

Al

 

From Tel Aviv - The Magnet and Morgan 1989 o :


http://www.cointalk.com/t191428/

 

I don't like #3.

 

Here are additonal photos highlighting the graininess of the fake coins, poor reeding, and excessive edge beveling.

 

I'd say number 3 for lack of a feather under (N)E. Of course my eyes are bad.

 

Sure! It's easy after he gives the answer.

 

I'm surprised no one mentioned the detail. The fake has better hair detail than the real one, but you can barely see the ear. Doesn't that seem just a bit out of place?

 

I thought the stars looked odd on number 3.

 

I'd say number 3 as well. The hair and cap don't look right

 

I also think 3 looks off. When do we get the answer?

 

3 is fake , too much luster for the wear is the 1st thing I noticed .

 

Great thread. We need a few more like this.

 

ahearn already answered on post 23, guys...

This thread restores my faith in coin collectors, to an extent. Most of us can notice a counterfeit when we see one.

 

#3

 

I too was pleasantly surprised at the number of correct answers (#3 for those who missed it).

However, the makers of these medium-quality fakes didn't work very hard to deceive. In fact they were sold as "copies." Of greater concern are the Chinese supercoins made of 90% silver and struck with laser-cut dies. There were some on eBay yesterday by Chinese sellers but not there today. They even state that they make custom orders -- any coin you want in any metal. How easy is it going to be to detect these when they get into the open market?

 

I never read a complete thread before answering. I did give a basis for my suspicions of 3 though.

Now about those newfangled rinky dink things they are trying to pass off as cents with an flying eagle on it...

 

I read the whole thread but I came to #3 before I read the second post. But I came to #3 differently than everyone else. I AM NO EXPERT by any means, but on #3 the D in United just seemed off to me. Anybody else agree with me or did I just get lucky?